To be fair the idea that most Western Europeans are descended from one man living about 4500 yrs ago (ish), who probably didn't even live there, is not one of the most obvious answers.

What I don't understand though is the people who disbelieve the above scenario are also the ones who are most likely to inform you that the entire population of England was replaced by a small band of Germans about 1500 yrs ago.

If you refer to the first M269 man, the estimates I have seen are from 4,000 to 8,000 ybp.As for your other contention, I know think there are many who believe the entire population of England was replaced by Germans. However it is incorrect to characterize the Anglo-Saxons as a small band. Their migration probably continued over two centuries. It's like saying the entire population of North America wasn't replaced by a small band of Europeans 500 years ago.

I agree with your point, Goldenhind. The Anglo-Saxon invasion, migration or whatever we want to call it, was significant and was more of an era than an event.

I do cringe at the use of the word "replace" in this conversation. There may still be a large part of the population in England that descend from ancient Britons. I doubt if the ancient Briton descendants add up to more than all of the various invaders, from Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans and whatever else I've missed, including (let's not forget) the indigeneous "pre-Britons." However, the remnants of the Britons may be still be a very large group of folks.

I don't think the comparison of European settlers into North America is an equivalent comparison. The relative populations of the North American natives versus the European immigrants was not at all the same proportion as ancient Britons to Anglo-Saxon immigrants. The difference in technologies was also not of the same proportions. Romano-Britain had metal technologies and full-fledged agricultural economies prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

I don't think the comparison of European settlers into North America is an equivalent comparison. The relative populations of the North American natives versus the European immigrants was not at all the same proportion as ancient Britons to Anglo-Saxon immigrants. The difference in technologies was also not of the same proportions. Romano-Britain had metal technologies and full-fledged agricultural economies prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

I agree but that is a major understament. The Romano-Britons were in fact much more advanced than the Anglo-Saxons. There is now a lot more evidence that Roman aspects of life including towns lasted a much longer period of time among the Britons after the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Actually I recently read a very good discussion of Anglo-Saxon takeover which suggested that it was mainly based on a large but scattered amount of Germanic (mainly but not all Angles and Saxons) mercenaries scattered all around in pockets and basically they had been invited and were in the pay of the local Britons libing in the towns. They seem to have lived outside the Britons towns at first in some sort of segregated settlements oir barracks but at some point in many areas it seems (probably when their pay stopped) that the mercenaries took over the reigns of power. It seems that rather than looking at epic D-day type invasions it was a very checkerboard and small scale thing played out in dozens of locations. [/quote]

I find it very interesting that the Britons were much more advanced than the Anglo-Saxons that settled there afterwards. It just seems like the Britons calmed down and formed towns and cities; this is probably due to the Roman influence.

What's even more interesting is that if it weren't for the Celts being a buffer zone between the Germanics and the Romans, would the Germanic tribes have been as successful in bringing down Rome? It seems like the Germans were left alone for a long time, whereas the Celtic tribes were always harrassed by the Romans, especially Julius Caesar.

I find it very interesting that the Britons were much more advanced than the Anglo-Saxons that settled there afterwards. It just seems like the Britons calmed down and formed towns and cities; this is probably due to the Roman influence.

What's even more interesting is that if it weren't for the Celts being a buffer zone between the Germanics and the Romans, would the Germanic tribes have been as successful in bringing down Rome? It seems like the Germans were left alone for a long time, whereas the Celtic tribes were always harrassed by the Romans, especially Julius Caesar.

I don't think the Celts were a "buffer zone". I think Alan described the Celts as the "winners of the Bronze Age" The Celts were really Caesar's target. I think they had a wealthier system in place, plus Celts had harassed the Romans. After they took care of the Mediterranean and Carthage, Gaul was the next logical target. Rome was the clear winner of the Iron Age.

What from what I've read, it's more like Rome imploded rather than was brought down. They "outsourced" their soldiering to many Germanics and others, which was basically training your eventual enemy while focusing on Gaul and then fighting internally.

I was only referring to the Celtic lands as a buffer zone in terms of Roman military engagement with Germanic tribes. Like you said, Gaul came after Carthage fell; Germany lay beyond Gaul. The Germans were not harassed due to their proximity from Rome.

It's just interesting considering we all could be speaking some other language than English today if it weren't for this case.

I was only referring to the Celtic lands as a buffer zone in terms of Roman military engagement with Germanic tribes. Like you said, Gaul came after Carthage fell; Germany lay beyond Gaul. The Germans were not harassed due to their proximity from Rome.

It's just interesting considering we all could be speaking some other language than English today if it weren't for this case.

I agree with what you wrote about the Celts pretty much (unintentionally) shielding the Germans from Roman aggression. The Celts bore the brunt of the Romans' attention, which weakened them and enabled the Germans to expand their territory. Of course, the Celts brought the Romans down on themselves through their own attacks on the Romans and their failure to administer the coup de grâce when they had the Romans down.

It is true too that Celtic civilization and culture were copied by the Germans and that the Germans advanced a great deal as a result of contact with Celts.

Another fact is that it took the Anglo-Saxons a couple of centuries to complete their takeover of what is now England, even though the population of Britannia had been depleted through plagues, war, and various Roman-era adventures on the Continent. That fact in part explains the triumph of the English language. It took the Anglo-Saxons so long to complete their conquest that they were able to (or were forced to) consolidate the areas under their control before acquiring new territories. It is also well to remember that when they were reasonably united the Britons dealt the Anglo-Saxons some pretty stunning defeats and staved them off for quite some time.

I also suspect that part of the Anglo-Saxon success was a result of accepting young Britons into the ranks of the Germanic Gefolge or Posse Comitatus, the group of warriors in service to a chief or lord who rewarded them with food, drink, weapons and loot. This was an Indo-European institution common to both Celts and Germans and would have gone a long way toward the Germanization of the fighting age population.

The Huns, who were not Indo-European, did the same thing with Germans and others when they invaded Europe; that is, they took them into their warrior bands.

To be fair the idea that most Western Europeans are descended from one man living about 4500 yrs ago (ish), who probably didn't even live there, is not one of the most obvious answers.

What I don't understand though is the people who disbelieve the above scenario are also the ones who are most likely to inform you that the entire population of England was replaced by a small band of Germans about 1500 yrs ago.

If you refer to the first M269 man, the estimates I have seen are from 4,000 to 8,000 ybp.As for your other contention, I don't think there are many who believe the entire population of England was replaced by Germans. However it is incorrect to characterize the Anglo-Saxons as a small band. Their migration probably continued over two centuries. It's like saying the entire population of North America wasn't replaced by a small band of Europeans 500 years ago.

I agree with your point, Goldenhind. The Anglo-Saxon invasion, migration or whatever we want to call it, was significant and was more of an era than an event.

I do cringe at the use of the word "replace" in this conversation. There may still be a large part of the population in England that descend from ancient Britons. I doubt if the ancient Briton descendants add up to more than all of the various invaders, from Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans and whatever else I've missed, including (let's not forget) the indigeneous "pre-Britons." However, the remnants of the Britons may be still be a very large group of folks.

I don't think the comparison of European settlers into North America is an equivalent comparison. The relative populations of the North American natives versus the European immigrants was not at all the same proportion as ancient Britons to Anglo-Saxon immigrants. The difference in technologies was also not of the same proportions. Romano-Britain had metal technologies and full-fledged agricultural economies prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

Hum, I suppose that post was a bit flippant.

Actually I was thinking of P312 which I think does constitute the larger proportion of Western European males, saying most might have been an exaggeration though.

Interesting that Alan has problems with the 4500 yr estimate being knocked about at the moment from the archaeological view point.

Sorry that you found the word 'replaced' a bit cringe making Mike, I wasn't expressing my own opinion though, rather giving an opinion on other peoples opinions. The idea that the Celts were pushed out of England into Wales and Scotland by the Anglo Saxons is common place over here, and was even taught in Schools not that long ago, still may be for that matter (just checked that detail with one of my children and can confirm it is).

However it's not just found amongst the general population, there are academics who still believe it, there was a post regarding this on the Genealogy-DNA mailing list back in July

Nobody really knows for siure what happened but a book/article I recentlly read very much looked at the archaeology and seemed to conclude that from even efore 400AD the Britons had invited and settled Germanic garrisons around the country, often outside their towns and in strategic points. This was presumably to provide internal and extenal security and act as a substitute for the departed Roman legions. This was long before he Britons fell from power anywhere. It seems the garrisons were kept seperate in seperate vllages and buried in seperate graveyards outside the towns. The archaeological evidence for the point when the tables turned seems to be when the Germanics moved from the settlements and burial grounds outside the Britons settlements and into them. I tried to find where I read this last night but I couldnt. It may have been one of the papers Jean Manco gave me access to. Certainly this idea of the servants becoming the masters in a scattered way makes a lot more sense in relation to the archaeological record than some sort of massive invasion. It is of interest that by the time the tables really turned in favour of the Anglo-Saxons c. 550AD, villages and barracks of them may have been present in Britain for several generations as hired military hands (since the late 300s). Hence, no 'scorched earth' horizon and no sign of a huge invasion. I tried to find where I read this last night but I couldnt. It may have been one of the papers Jean Manco gave me access to.

Alan probably has a better idea of the direction the academics are likely to go in, but they don't seem to be in any hurry to make there minds up, they don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing. Who knows though, they may even take into account recent developments in DNA like L21.

Either way it's unlikely to make much difference to what schools teach, they normally like to work out of text books that are at least a couple of decades out of date, and therefore also the perception of the general public.

I think a lot of this may be coloured by a mild animosity between the Welsh and the English as well, with a notion of Anglo Saxon superiority on the English side and our view of them can be a bit off as well, to test this out just ask a few Welsh who they are supporting the next time England plays France at Rugby

LOL No doubt the Welsh would support a French squad over an English one. But it's interesting that L21's prevalence in England means that the majority of Englishmen and Welshmen may not be that unrelated.

LOL No doubt the Welsh would support a French squad over an English one. But it's interesting that L21's prevalence in England means that the majority of Englishmen and Welshmen may not be that unrelated.

Alan probably has a better idea of the direction the academics are likely to go in, but they don't seem to be in any hurry to make there minds up, they don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing. Who knows though, they may even take into account recent developments in DNA like L21.

Either way it's unlikely to make much difference to what schools teach, they normally like to work out of text books that are at least a couple of decades out of date, and therefore also the perception of the general public.

I think a lot of this may be coloured by a mild animosity between the Welsh and the English as well, with a notion of Anglo Saxon superiority on the English side and our view of them can be a bit off as well, to test this out just ask a few Welsh who they are supporting the next time England plays France at Rugby

I used to know a lot more on the subject than I do now so my knowledge of the way its going now is patchy. Still seems to be huge disagreement. Its one of the great challenges of history/archaeology to sort that one out.

Note though that despite the lack of Celtic vocab in English, there is evidence that the actual structure of English has been effected by British Celtic suggesting that English is partly the result of Celts trying to learn Anglo-Saxon Germanic.

I have participated in the debate of the Germanic vs. Celtic genetic composition of the English on another forum several times. My position, which is based primarily but not exclusively on the linguistic and place-name evidence, is that the vast majority of the English Ydna gene pool existing at the time of the Norman Conquest was of Anglo-Saxon origin.Everytime I do so, I spent a great deal of time consulting various sources and marshalling my arguments. I disagree with most of what has been said above, and considered entering the fray once again. But it occurs to me that in a forum dominated by L21 Celtophiles, I am not going to change anyone's mind, and would be essentially wasting my time.But I do want to comment on the above scenario. The consensus view seems to be that the English are essentially Celtic like the rest of us, discounting a handful of Germanic primitives who were allowed in only as servants, but somehow magically managed to usurp control and change the language and the names of the landscape. But even though they are the same as us, we hate them anyway and take pride in cheering on their traditional enemies in sporting matches.I am not going to waste my time attempting to change that mindset.

Goldenhind-lol I can see you must have come across the continuity extremists, Francis Pryor being the most famous. I am sort of in the middle ground. I think a large number of Germanic garrisons were scattered throughout much of England, not just the SE, in times well before the traditional adventus. I think in total they probably ran into many 1000s. I do think they were originally in the pay of the Britons, possibly even directed by a sub-Roman overlord. My feeling is that they eventually moved from servants to masters and when that happened they were probably followed up in the east by more fresh waves. I still cant see the migration having brought more than a few 10s of thousands into a Brittania of several millions Britons. However, I (partly) agree with the idea that they would have multiplied within Britain in the later generations due to their higher status so the numbers of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation A-Saxons was far more than ever crossed the sea in the 1st generation. The Anglo-Saxons perhaps had an average of 500 years dominance to use this advantage on average when you look at lingering Britons in the west and Danes in the east. I think this would have raised their numbers but not to the degree some suggested.

A parallel is the Ui Neils dominance of the northern half of Ireland. The Ui Neill had nearly twice the length of hegemony in NW Ireland than the A-Saxons had in England on average. They also had the typical Irish social structure whereby success depends on and results in massive lineage growth. In Irish society the growth of the clan lineage was everything. The thing to note is despite this M222 never became an absolute majority anywhere in Ireland. Anglo-Saxons did not have the same sort of deep lineage based clan type society and a lot more was down to patronage etc. So, they are not especially known for huge lineages. Also, the Anglo-Saxons only had half the period of time the UI Neill had in the NW. Now if M222 never got near to an absolute majoiorty in a 1000 year span in a clan based society known for its Ghengises then it doesnt seem likely that the much less lineage obsessed Anglo-Saxon society would have done better in half the time.

It's too late in the night for me to try and add anything useful to this discussion

However I do wonder if it shouldn't be moved to a new thread, it touches a lot of things I find personally very interesting, but this is supposed to be about French results a subject we are all interested in, and I get the impression this current conversation may roll on a bit

It's too late in the night for me to try and add anything useful to this discussion

However I do wonder if it shouldn't be moved to a new thread, it touches a lot of things I find personally very interesting, but this is supposed to be about French results a subject we are all interested in, and I get the impression this current conversation may roll on a bit

I do think it might be a good idea to start a new thread if anyone wants to continue the wipeout versus continuity debate.

This thread is supposed to be about French L21 testing (and I am guilty of taking it off topic, too).

Goldenhind-lol I can see you must have come across the continuity extremists, Francis Pryor being the most famous. I am sort of in the middle ground. I think a large number of Germanic garrisons were scattered throughout much of England, not just the SE, in times well before the traditional adventus. I think in total they probably ran into many 1000s. I do think they were originally in the pay of the Britons, possibly even directed by a sub-Roman overlord. My feeling is that they eventually moved from servants to masters and when that happened they were probably followed up in the east by more fresh waves. I still cant see the migration having brought more than a few 10s of thousands into a Brittania of several millions Britons. However, I (partly) agree with the idea that they would have multiplied within Britain in the later generations due to their higher status so the numbers of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation A-Saxons was far more than ever crossed the sea in the 1st generation. The Anglo-Saxons perhaps had an average of 500 years dominance to use this advantage on average when you look at lingering Britons in the west and Danes in the east. I think this would have raised their numbers but not to the degree some suggested.

A parallel is the Ui Neils dominance of the northern half of Ireland. The Ui Neill had nearly twice the length of hegemony in NW Ireland than the A-Saxons had in England on average. They also had the typical Irish social structure whereby success depends on and results in massive lineage growth. In Irish society the growth of the clan lineage was everything. The thing to note is despite this M222 never became an absolute majority anywhere in Ireland. Anglo-Saxons did not have the same sort of deep lineage based clan type society and a lot more was down to patronage etc. So, they are not especially known for huge lineages. Also, the Anglo-Saxons only had half the period of time the UI Neill had in the NW. Now if M222 never got near to an absolute majoiorty in a 1000 year span in a clan based society known for its Ghengises then it doesnt seem likely that the much less lineage obsessed Anglo-Saxon society would have done better in half the time.

Your scenario begs an explanation of how 10,000 Anglo-Saxons came to utterly dominate several million technologically superior Romano-Britons.However I fully agree we have completely hijacked this thread, so I will refrain from futher comments on this subject here.Perhaps someone could transfer the above posts relating to this subject to a new thread?